[Prospective Comparative Study of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treatment of Single-segment Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Lumbar...]

Overview

Journal Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi

Specialty General Surgery

Date 2024 May 16

PMID 38752236

Authors

Diqiu Wu

Tao Shu

Qianwei Lu

Mao Shen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Methods: Between November 2019 and May 2023, a total of 81 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis who met the selection criteria were enrolled. They were randomly divided into UBE-TLIF group (39 cases) and Endo-TLIF group (42 cases). There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups ( >0.05), including gender, age, body mass index, surgical segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and serum markers including creatine kinase (CK) and C reactive protein (CRP). Total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss, hidden blood loss (HBL), postoperative drainage volume, and operation time were recorded and compared between the two groups. Serum markers (CK, CRP) levels were compared between the two groups at 1 day before operation and 1, 3, and 5 days after operation. Furthermore, the VAS scores for low back and leg pain, and ODI at 1 day before operation and 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation, and intervertebral fusion rate at 12 months after operation were compared between the two groups.

Results: All surgeries were completed successfully without occurrence of incision infection, vascular or nerve injury, epidural hematoma, dural tear, or postoperative paraplegia. The operation time in UBE-TLIF group was significantly shorter than that in Endo-TLIF group, but the intraoperative blood loss, TBL, and HBL in UBE-TLIF group were significantly more than those in Endo-TLIF group ( <0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative drainage volume between the two groups ( >0.05). The levels of CK at 1 day and 3 days after operation and CRP at 1, 3, and 5 days after operation in UBE-TLIF group were slightly higher than those in the Endo-TLIF group ( <0.05), while there was no significant difference in the levels of CK and CPR between the two groups at other time points ( >0.05). All patients were followed up 12 months. VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation in the two groups ( <0.05); there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI between the two groups at each time point after operation ( >0.05). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups at 12 months after operation ( 0.05).

Conclusion: UBE-TLIF and Endo-TLIF are both effective methods for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, compared to Endo-TLIF, UBE-TLIF requires further improvement in minimally invasive techniques to reduce tissue trauma and blood loss.

References

Zhang Y, Tian L, Hu P, Lu H . [Research progress of unilateral biportal endoscopy technique in treatment of lumbar related diseases]. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2022; 36(10):1234-1240. PMC: 9626282. DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.202205087. View

Gao Y, Ou Y, Deng Q, He B, Du X, Li J . Comparison between titanium mesh and autogenous iliac bone graft to restore vertebral height through posterior approach for the treatment of thoracic and lumbar spinal tuberculosis. PLoS One. 2017; 12(4):e0175567. PMC: 5391077. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175567. View

Lei F, Li Z, He W, Tian X, Zheng L, Kang J . Total and hidden blood loss between open posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by Wiltse approach. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020; 99(20):e19864. PMC: 7253681. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019864. View

Woods K, Billys J, Hynes R . Technical description of oblique lateral interbody fusion at L1-L5 (OLIF25) and at L5-S1 (OLIF51) and evaluation of complication and fusion rates. Spine J. 2016; 17(4):545-553. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.10.026. View

Sang P, Ma Y, Chen B, Zhang M . The role of serum creatine kinase levels in anterior cervical spinal surgery: Change trends and risk factors. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021; 100(51):e28300. PMC: 8702170. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000028300. View

Sehat , Evans , Newman . How much blood is really lost in total knee arthroplasty?. Correct blood loss management should take hidden loss into account. Knee. 2000; 7(3):151-155. DOI: 10.1016/s0968-0160(00)00047-8. View

Heo D, Lee D, Kim H, Park C, Chung H . Clinical Results and Complications of Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2020; 145:396-404. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.10.033. View

Rizki Gatam A, Gatam L, Mahadhipta H, Ajiantoro A, Luthfi O, Aprilya D . Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Note and an Outcome Comparison with the Conventional Minimally Invasive Fusion. Orthop Res Rev. 2021; 13:229-239. PMC: 8628045. DOI: 10.2147/ORR.S336479. View

Jiang W, Shi H, Deng X, Hou W, Wan D . The incidence of incision infections after lumbar fusion and the significance of dynamically monitoring serum albumin and C-reactive protein levels. Ann Palliat Med. 2021; 10(10):10870-10877. DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-2512. View

10.

Xu J, Wang D, Liu J, Zhu C, Bao J, Gao W . Learning Curve and Complications of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy: Cumulative Sum and Risk-Adjusted Cumulative Sum Analysis. Neurospine. 2022; 19(3):792-804. PMC: 9537833. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2143116.558. View

11.

Ao S, Zheng W, Wu J, Tang Y, Zhang C, Zhou Y . Comparison of Preliminary clinical outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases in a tertiary hospital: Is percutaneous endoscopic procedure superior to.... Int J Surg. 2020; 76:136-143. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.043. View

12.

Heo D, Son S, Eum J, Park C . Fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopic technique: technical note and preliminary clinical results. Neurosurg Focus. 2017; 43(2):E8. DOI: 10.3171/2017.5.FOCUS17146. View

13.

Xu D, Chen X, Li Z, Ren Z, Zhuang Q, Li S . Tranexamic acid reduce hidden blood loss in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020; 99(11):e19552. PMC: 7440332. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019552. View

14.

Hennemann S, de Abreu M . Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo). 2021; 56(1):9-17. PMC: 7895619. DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1712490. View

15.

He B, Zhu Z, Lin L, Sun J, Huang Y, Meng C . Comparison of biportal endoscopic technique and uniportal endoscopic technique in Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decomprssion (ULBD) for lumbar spinal stenosis. Asian J Surg. 2023; 47(1):112-117. DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2023.05.068. View

16.

Park M, Park S, Son S, Park W, Choi S . Correction to: Clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): 1-year follow-up. Neurosurg Rev. 2019; 42(3):763. DOI: 10.1007/s10143-019-01131-2. View

17.

Yang Y, Liu Z, Zhang L, Pang M, Chhantyal K, Wu W . Microendoscopy-Assisted Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: 5-Year Outcomes. World Neurosurg. 2018; 116:e602-e610. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.05.049. View

18.

Kang M, You K, Choi J, Heo D, Chung H, Park H . Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the biportal endoscopic techniques versus microscopic tubular technique. Spine J. 2021; 21(12):2066-2077. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.06.013. View

19.

Pholprajug P, Kotheeranurak V, Liu Y, Kim J . The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective. Neurospine. 2024; 20(4):1224-1245. PMC: 10762387. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2346888.444. View

20.

Xiao C, Yin W, Zhao K, Luo J, Huang W, Liu W . Early Clinical Efficacy of Endo-TLIF in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation. Z Orthop Unfall. 2022; 160(6):670-678. DOI: 10.1055/a-1795-4038. View